 | This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
1st teapot: "Today's a sunny day."
2nd teapot: "NO, NO, NO! It is NOT a sunny day! How could you ever think that and be so irresponsible as to speak your insipid thought aloud?"
1st teapot: "Well, how would you describe the weather today?"
2nd teapot: "I don't have time to talk about the weather, but it's still NOT sunny!"
"Pulling a Wikipedia" or "a Wikipedia" is slang used to metaphorically describe "real life" situations where someone acts like people do on Wikipedia. Specifically, for the situation where a user freaks out regarding content, but then, when asked to improve the content, says that they don't have time, that the trouble isn't worth the time, that the issue, "just isn't important enough," to spend the time/effort collaborating, or accuses others of forcing them to talk about something they don't want to talk about.
Since Wikipedia is by and large a collaboration between unpaid volunteers, one can't be forced to do work on Wikipedia because volunteers don't necessarily take orders and don't need to give two weeks notice when quitting. If editors don't want to talk about global warming, they don't have to. If editors don't want to read about global warming they still don't have to, as long as they are willing to limit what they read in order to avoid the topic (and are willing to stop reading if the topic comes up unexpectedly). Similarly, if all an editor wants to do is talk about and make contributions to Wikipedia content regarding global warming then they can and may do so. However, when someone contacts you on your user talk page you may be "forced" to read what they wrote by the urge to act with kindness, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and by feelings of personal responsibility regarding traditional and electronic mail.
When an editor or an ISP cares passionately enough about something to express dissatisfaction, distress, protest, rant, or personally attack another editor due to a content dispute but then, when they are asked to improve the content or asked how one might improve the content for them, they say they don't have the time and don't want to be forced to talk about the issue at hand. The irony is that the longer the rant on the talk page(s) saying that the Wikipedia article content is wrong, and sometimes, even the editors are stupid, regarding an issue, the more it is implied that the user thinks that time should be spent on it and that it is highly important.
A hypothetical postmodern example would be an editor freaking out over Russell's teapot. If a user contacts you on your talk page to tell you repeatedly in a multi-paragraph rant that you are so wrong to think that there isn't a perfect British teapot in perfect orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, you might assume that the user can easily point to a reliable source claiming that the teapot is real and that, given the amount of time they spent writing the message to you, that it is something worth the trouble and the time to get right. But sometimes, if not often, when one asks for citations, per WP:V, the user offers no references and may say that they don't appreciate being forced to talk or read about Russell's teapot (after volunteering to do so in a manner that forced you to read about it).
The humor lies not in the irrationality of the editor's assertions, but with the irrational manner in which they display those assertions; irrational rhetoric. The opposite example, of someone who passionately cried out that there is no teapot in perfect orbit between the earth and mars but then is unable or unwilling to add citations to articles or discuss the issue is still irrationally "pulling a Wikipedia" (for instance, unlike many titles, the namesake "Russell's teapot" gives one a good idea of one author, the eponym, which just might discuss the issue and be referenced/cited).
As many people argue, the internet prompts users to engage as soon as possible, but the strongest fastest reactions are usually the most negative (from extreme disgust to simple cognitive dissonance or doubt), so that Wikipedia, though better than standard social media by far, still serves to concentrate and amplify negativity, and "pulling a Wikipedia" is just one example among many.
| This is an
essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
1st teapot: "Today's a sunny day."
2nd teapot: "NO, NO, NO! It is NOT a sunny day! How could you ever think that and be so irresponsible as to speak your insipid thought aloud?"
1st teapot: "Well, how would you describe the weather today?"
2nd teapot: "I don't have time to talk about the weather, but it's still NOT sunny!"
"Pulling a Wikipedia" or "a Wikipedia" is slang used to metaphorically describe "real life" situations where someone acts like people do on Wikipedia. Specifically, for the situation where a user freaks out regarding content, but then, when asked to improve the content, says that they don't have time, that the trouble isn't worth the time, that the issue, "just isn't important enough," to spend the time/effort collaborating, or accuses others of forcing them to talk about something they don't want to talk about.
Since Wikipedia is by and large a collaboration between unpaid volunteers, one can't be forced to do work on Wikipedia because volunteers don't necessarily take orders and don't need to give two weeks notice when quitting. If editors don't want to talk about global warming, they don't have to. If editors don't want to read about global warming they still don't have to, as long as they are willing to limit what they read in order to avoid the topic (and are willing to stop reading if the topic comes up unexpectedly). Similarly, if all an editor wants to do is talk about and make contributions to Wikipedia content regarding global warming then they can and may do so. However, when someone contacts you on your user talk page you may be "forced" to read what they wrote by the urge to act with kindness, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and by feelings of personal responsibility regarding traditional and electronic mail.
When an editor or an ISP cares passionately enough about something to express dissatisfaction, distress, protest, rant, or personally attack another editor due to a content dispute but then, when they are asked to improve the content or asked how one might improve the content for them, they say they don't have the time and don't want to be forced to talk about the issue at hand. The irony is that the longer the rant on the talk page(s) saying that the Wikipedia article content is wrong, and sometimes, even the editors are stupid, regarding an issue, the more it is implied that the user thinks that time should be spent on it and that it is highly important.
A hypothetical postmodern example would be an editor freaking out over Russell's teapot. If a user contacts you on your talk page to tell you repeatedly in a multi-paragraph rant that you are so wrong to think that there isn't a perfect British teapot in perfect orbit around the sun somewhere between the Earth and Mars, you might assume that the user can easily point to a reliable source claiming that the teapot is real and that, given the amount of time they spent writing the message to you, that it is something worth the trouble and the time to get right. But sometimes, if not often, when one asks for citations, per WP:V, the user offers no references and may say that they don't appreciate being forced to talk or read about Russell's teapot (after volunteering to do so in a manner that forced you to read about it).
The humor lies not in the irrationality of the editor's assertions, but with the irrational manner in which they display those assertions; irrational rhetoric. The opposite example, of someone who passionately cried out that there is no teapot in perfect orbit between the earth and mars but then is unable or unwilling to add citations to articles or discuss the issue is still irrationally "pulling a Wikipedia" (for instance, unlike many titles, the namesake "Russell's teapot" gives one a good idea of one author, the eponym, which just might discuss the issue and be referenced/cited).
As many people argue, the internet prompts users to engage as soon as possible, but the strongest fastest reactions are usually the most negative (from extreme disgust to simple cognitive dissonance or doubt), so that Wikipedia, though better than standard social media by far, still serves to concentrate and amplify negativity, and "pulling a Wikipedia" is just one example among many.